Tim’s Airfix 1/35 Austin K2/Y Ambulance .

[adt70hk]

I'm beginning to think it's a badge made up for the film.

That's what I was beginning to think....

[Jim R]

The decals have brought this to life. Always a relief when decals behave well. I've built a few of the newer Airfix 1/72 aeroplanes and the decals have been excellent.

[Geoffers]

Looking fantastic Tim, as said the decal’s really bring it to life :thumb2:

Geoff.

[Tim Marlow]

The decals have brought this to life. Always a relief when decals behave well. I've built a few of the newer Airfix 1/72 aeroplanes and the decals have been excellent.

Cheers Jim. Agree ref Airfix decals, possibly the best on the market at the moment. They are as good or better than Italeri, who’s are made by Cartograph I think.

[Tim Marlow]

Looking fantastic Tim, as said the decal’s really bring it to life :thumb2:

Geoff.

Cheers Geoff, they certainly do….

[Steve-the-Duck]

The Airfix decal schemes are set up as 5 ton for the desert, but 4 ton for Europe? They don’t have the film vehicle as an option. Restored vehicles show this as well, but they may be copying the film.

Okay, now that is even more interesting. Most of the K2s I've seen pictures of in the desert show them from the side or the wrong angle to see the bridging disc. Maybe an extra ton is added for soft sand?

[Tim Marlow]

Okay, now that is even more interesting. Most of the K2s I've seen pictures of in the desert show them from the side or the wrong angle to see the bridging disc. Maybe an extra ton is added for soft sand?

Agreed, most of the images I have are from the side or the back…..apart from Katy of course.

[Guest]

The bridging class is not actual vehicle weight in tons, though.

The elegant and simple solution they came up with was to invent a scale, or classification, related to weight but crucially, not only weight.

Each bridge type was allocated load class number and each vehicle was also given a load class number.

Instead of looking up and cross referencing a vehicle against a bridge classification a simple comparison of load class was performed, if the numbers matched or the vehicle was less than the bridge classification then it could pass.

A spacing of 80ft was assumed at the bridge classification took into account bending moment and other factors, it was not simply a weight (this is a key distinction)

Instead of weights of vehicles, each vehicle had a class, these starting at 3 and moving up to 24 in regular intervals.

If a vehicle’s load class was smaller than the bridges load class then it could cross and to assist with the rapid cross checking a standardised series of markings was designed, both bridge and vehicle had the marking in the same colours so a driver could simply compare the bridge sign with that painted on his vehicle and make the decision whether to cross without reference to bridge commanders or complex tables.

I wish I could find the source again where I, long ago, came across a list of official bridge classifications for British vehicles, though.

[Tim Marlow]

The bridging class is not actual vehicle weight in tons, though.

I wish I could find the source again where I, long ago, came across a list of official bridge classifications for British vehicles, though.

So the classification could actually change according to terrain then?

[Steve-the-Duck]

Yeah, I knew that the number on the vehicle isn't the vehicle weight but the bridge load capacity, so it does make sense for softer terrain to be classed as a higher loading.
Or should it be the other way round..?

Ooh, Warpaint Vol.4 by Dick Taylor has a whole section on bridge classification 'The simplicity of the concept guaranteed its longevity; exactly the same system is in use with the British - and NATO - forces to this day.'
Ooh,
'Because the lowest military Bridge Class was 5 tons, some vehicles lighter than this either seem to have used the 5 marking irrespective of their true class, or did not mark the disc at all.'
Weight classes -
4 Daimler Dingo, Humber Scout Car, Universal Carriers
5 Most 15cwt trucks, Daimler Dingo (later mks maybe?), White Scout, Austin K2 (there she is!), Universal Carriers

So , crossover between 4 an 5 tons. And , apparently also, some vehicles wer uprated to compensate for all the extra gear being carried
Now it makes sense. Thanks Jakko. Knew I had it in a book somewhere!

[Tim Marlow]

Yeah, I knew that the number on the vehicle isn't the vehicle weight but the bridge load capacity, so it does make sense for softer terrain to be classed as a higher loading.
Or should it be the other way round..?

Ooh, Warpaint Vol.4 by Dick Taylor has a whole section on bridge classification 'The simplicity of the concept guaranteed its longevity; exactly the same system is in use with the British - and NATO - forces to this day.'
Ooh,
'Because the lowest military Bridge Class was 5 tons, some vehicles lighter than this either seem to have used the 5 marking irrespective of their true class, or did not mark the disc at all.'
Weight classes -
4 Daimler Dingo, Humber Scout Car, Universal Carriers
5 Most 15cwt trucks, Daimler Dingo (later mks maybe?), White Scout, Austin K2 (there she is!), Universal Carriers

So , crossover between 4 an 5 tons. And , apparently also, some vehicles wer uprated to compensate for all the extra gear being carried
Now it makes sense. Thanks Jakko. Knew I had it in a book somewhere!

Actually think I’ve got that book on a shelf somewhere, but these days just tend to be lazy and use the net…..

[Steve-the-Duck]

I have trouble remembering what info is in which of my many, many, many...
...many books
Then using the same one over and over

Index them all? What nonsense is that?

[Guest]

Knew I had it in a book somewhere!

I found it on the Internet somewhere, about ten years ago by now I suppose, but it was a list taken from an official wartime publication. I copied parts of it for something I was working on, but not all of it as not everything was pertinent to that, including the Austin K2; I did find this, that I got from there, though:

Cruiser Tank, Cromwell	26
Cruiser Tank, Sherman	30
Infantry Tank, Churchill	40
A.V.R.E., Churchill	40
Light Tank, Stuart	15
Light Tank, Tetrarch	7
S.P. Gun, Centaur A.A.	21
S.P. Gun, Crusader A.A.	21
S.P. Gun, M.10	33
Carrier, Loyd	5
—towing Q.F. 6-pounder Gun	6/5
Carrier, Universal	5
Gun Tractor, Crusader	18
Light Reconnaissance Car, Canadian G.M.	5
Light Reconnaissance Car, Humber	3
Scout Car, Daimler	4
Scout Car, Humber	5
Armoured Car, A.E.C.	14
Armoured Car, Daimler	9
Armoured Car, Greyhound	7
Armoured Car, Humber	9
Armoured Car, Staghound	14 or 15
Car, 5-cwt., 4×4 (Jeep)	3
—towing Q.F. 6-pounder Gun	5/3
—towing Trailer, 15-cwt.	5/3
—towing Trailer, 1-ton	6/3
Truck, 8-cwt.	2
Truck, 15-cwt.	5
—towing Q.F. 17-pounder Gun	7/6
Truck, 15-cwt., Half-track	8
Lorry, 3-ton	7, 8 or 9
Trailer, 15-cwt.	2
Trailer, 1-ton	3

“Fractions” mean the disc had two numbers, one above the other, but that’s kind of hard to format here.

[Tim Marlow]

Hi all.
Body now painted and dusted up.


Not a lot to do now. Wheels on next plus wing mirrors, canvas cab doors, and steps. After that, just the rear doors to finish and fit and the sand mats and tow rope……

[Neil Merryweather]

looking really good , Tim.
what are you using for the dust?